IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting the need to balance personal liberty with the investigative rights of the authorities.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in Case FIR No. 23 of 2021, dated 03.03.2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station East Shimla.

2. Status Report stands filed, wherein it is stated that Shri Navin Kumar Patial, Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Panthaghati (Shimla), presented an application to the police, stating therein that on 8.12.2015, co-accused Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar approached State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (now after merger, State Bank of India) and made a request for grant of Home Loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for purchase of property, and that request of these co-accused was considered by the Bank and the Bank agreed to grant Home Loan on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Sanction Letter. Thereafter, in order to secure the loan, these accused persons mortgaged their property and deposited original title document, i.e. Sale Deed, registered vide registration No. 2698, vide which equitable mortgage has been created, and the bank sanctioned the loan and asked these two persons to execute registered mortgage deed also, on which they deposited mortgage deed registered vide registration No. 8890. When bank official visited the property, he found that the borrowers had sold all the flats in the property and same was confirmed by the Bank’s Empanelled Advocate in his title investigation report that said sale deed was not found registered with Sub Registrar, Shimla.

3. It is stated in the Status Report that the aforesaid two accused had also approached the aforesaid Bank, on 15.6.2015 and made a request/applied for grant of Home Loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- for completion/finishing of semi-finished house, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose supplied and deposited mortgage deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar Theog, vide Registration No. 479, but, on inquiry, the said mortgage deed was found to be forged and fabricated document.

4. It has been stated that co-accused Sanjay, in connivance with other accused persons Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, on 28.12.2016, approached the aforesaid bank for grant of loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- for purchase of entire RCC frame structure of Ground Floor and Parking Floor of under construction building, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose co-accused Sanjay deposited original sale deed with the bank, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No. 2580 and also deposited Mortgage Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Shimla vide Registration No. 1625, but, on inquiry, it was found that the property mentioned in the deeds was not in the name of the borrower and it was also confirmed on inquiry from office of Patwari.

5. It is further stated in the Status Report that co-accused Pankaj also, in connivance with co-accused Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, approached the aforesaid Bank on 23.2.2017 and applied for grant of loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- for purchase of semi-finished flat, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose Pankaj deposited original Sale Deed, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No. 146 and thereafter also deposited Mortgage Deed, registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No. 1676, but, on inquiry by the Empanelled Advocate of the Bank, it was found that neither the Sale Deed belonged to Pankaj nor the Mortgage Deed was in existence.

6. It is also stated in the Status Report that co-accused Sanjeev Kumar had also approached the aforesaid Bank on 20.9.2016, for grant of Home Loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and